List local n8n workflow backups created before mutations. Filter by server or workflow ID to inspect pre-change versions for recovery or rollback.
List local workflow backups created before n8n mutations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum backups to show (integer 1-1000). | |
| server_name | No | Optional server name filter. | |
| workflow_id | No | Optional workflow ID filter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'backups created before n8n mutations' provides useful context about what is being read. However, it does not disclose return format, whether local means filesystem vs database, or any operational caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource immediately and includes a meaningful qualifier without wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only three optional, fully documented parameters and no nested objects, the tool is simple enough that this description is nearly complete. A small gap is the absence of any mention of the response shape, but 'list' reasonably implies a list of backup entries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents what each parameter means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('local workflow backups'), and a defining condition ('created before n8n mutations'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflows or n8n_list_executions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'created before n8n mutations' implies the tool is relevant in a backup/safety workflow, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like n8n_restore_workflow or n8n_safety_status. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.